Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday August 12, 2011 @12:56PM
from the you'll-never-catch-him,-he's-the-gingerbread-man dept.

bonch writes "The FTC is investigating claims that Google prevented Android smartphone vendors from using competing services (covered previously), whether Google preferentially places its own services above others on the search results page, and whether Google scraped content from competitors for use in its own services. FTC lawyers are also asking how Android may be helping Google maintain its massive web search lead. Google denies all allegations and blames jealous rivals for the growing number of probes. The European Commission's own antitrust probe is ongoing."

Whenever I see the word "probes" in a headline, it seems like the first thing that occurs to me is anal probes. It seems like they'd just as easily be able to use "investigates" and avoid this connotation.

It seems like they'd just as easily be able to use "investigates" [instead of "probes"] and avoid this connotation.

They use "probes" to save space, the same reason people use "M$" instead of "Microsoft" in Slashdot comment subjects, and the same reason you use "V." and not "Vorokrytin" in your Slashdot username. Let me open Python:

Bing (Microsoft product) paid Verizon (a near-monopolistic wireless carrier) to do exactly this. Google search was scraped from all the Blackberries, and possibly other phones as well, even though Google was the default search engine when customers purchased the device. This was done openly and for some reason FCC took no interest in the event. At least now we know who's pocket FCC is sitting in.

Dominant is not what is at issue. The question is one of monopoly and Google is not a monopoly at 65 percent share in the US.

Furthermore, RIM released their smartphones with Google because they wanted to. Asking Verizon to change it costs money so of course MS had to pay. Do you think Vzw would change Bing to Google on their windows phones for free? You are basically saying anybody should just be able to waltz into Verizon HQ and get the default search on all of their smartphones changed on a whim. G

Android-based smartphones from Verizon also use Bing as the default search provider. So it appears that Google will allow carriers to customize that aspect of the phone.

The main questions are: did Verizon have to put up a fight with Google over the change, or did Google not really care? Is there much interest from the carriers in changing the default search engine? Are any other carriers even making this change (like Chinese carriers using Baidu as opposed to western search engines)?

I remember this very thing. When I complained to Verizon, their reply could be summarized as "Tough cookies!" When I got my new phone, all the Verizon stuff went into a folder labeled "VZ crapware", and I installed the Google apps instead.

Verizon is remarkable for their ability to annoy me just shy of the point where I will change carriers.

Unless of course your company locks down any one specific thing (from what I can tell) you cannot change your default search provider. I've tried and I keep getting a little alert box that says the default cannot be changed. I had to go into the registry to set it to Google, and that wasn't necessarily a fun task (had to get UUID for Google search, remove Bing one, etc.)

FTA
"FTC lawyers have also asked about the growing influence of Android and how it may be helping Google maintain its lead in Web search. Google's search engine is the default for many phones built using Android."
I hope that all these people look at the back of the phones, and see the "with Google (tm)" logo... That's effectively notifying everyone that Google products are going to come with the device. Why should Google package Yahoo! search with the OS that they developed. IANAL, but I feel that Googl

I agree. Though Microsoft basically did the same thing with Internet Explorer and got into a lot of hot water, so it's hard to say.

Last I checked Apple controls their platform pretty tightly aswell and forces you to use the iTunes store for everything. Why isn't Apple being investigated for not allowing competiting app stores (without jailbreaking). Why is Apple allowed to tie their services to their platform and Google isn't? Seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Google's defensive posture is getting a little tired, and less and less effective. They think the answer to their legal troubles is a massive PR campaign. "It's not us, it's just that our competitors are jealous!" "We're not infringing on patents, we're just being oppressed, victimized systematically by these outrageous patent litigation abusers!"

Google does block competitors from Android phones, but it's not because they're Android phones. Anyone can make an Android phone and use any search-engine default, any advertising network, that they want. What Google does is say that if you want to use the Google brand on the phone you can't use non-Google services on it. To me that seems to be a completely valid use of their trademark, and has nothing to do with their position in search. You want an Android phone that doesn't put Google front-and-center? Look for one that isn't Google-branded. And as far as I know Google does nothing whatsoever to stop anyone from making a non-Google-branded Android phone, correct?

When I went to get my droid device and switch from Windows Mobile way back when. I was on AT&T, I would have stayed with them as well except they had 2 Droid devices at the time and they had not only changed but locked in Yahoo as the only search engine. You couldn't change it. So I switched to Verizon.
Anyway the Android operating system not only can have the search changed by the manufacturer, but also by the provider. So not sure why there even would be an investigation in the matter.

Just don't buy your phones from your cell phone operator (at least you can do it with AT&T)? Doing otherwise is practically inviting to be raped eventually. Good example is AT&T ripping out tethering from their Android phones, or Verizon blocking tethering apps in the Market.

A phone which says powered by Google on the back which has the Google logo on it, runs an operating system that was created by Google, uses Google search as the default?

Say it ain't so!

Mind you there's absolutely nothing stopping competitors, nothing stopping you installing an alternative browser, nothing stopping Samsung or HTC installing a Bing search bar in the phone, nothing stopping the ISP from including different defaults in the CSC.

Yeah? Google is so very keen to get people's wallet-names in Google+ that they're going to bias their search engine toward people who sign up. Really [webpronews.com] - corrupting their search engine to try to extract more identity data.

It's more complex than that. Web Search now is the ultimate vendor lock, just because it's based on so much data. Data that you can't generate just by improving your algorithms. That's why Google follows what results you pick from the search results, that's why they collect so much data about keywords people use and which ones are relevant to each other and lately they even started following how much time people spend on the website Google referred people to. If user comes back to the search page quickly, i

If that were true, Google would have a similar monopoly on web search in the US that MS has on the desktop. Last I checked, Google only has about a 65 percent share. That is not even close to what you would expect from "ultimate vendor lock".

So to compete with Google and improve your search engine you need at least as much of that data as Google

Bull. There are many ways to compete. Offer better services, better interface, more convenient searching, better sorting of the data you have, so on and so forth.

That's exactly why you need that huge amount of user data. If it was just the case of algorithms Google wouldn't be collecting all that data and there would be much more competition. As for "better services, better interface, more convenient searching", how exactly would you improve that? It's already pretty much as convenient as it gets.

Yeah, and if it weren't for the high cost of steel, labor, and know-how, anybody could be building and selling aircraft carriers. Some things are hard to do and require an enormous investment. It is not society or government's job to make it so every tom dick and harry in their garage can get into any business they want and be on equal footing with incumbent players. What you are asking for is prima facie ludicrous.

If it was just the case of algorithms Google wouldn't be collecting all that data and there would be much more competition

Yeah, and if it weren't for the high cost of steel, labor, and know-how, anybody could be building and selling aircraft carriers. Some things are hard to do and require an enormous investment. It is not society or government's job to make it so every tom dick and harry in their garage can get into any business they want and be on equal footing with incumbent players. What you are asking for is prima facie ludicrous.

Now that's just idiotic comparison. Cost of steel, labor and know-how is a fixed cost. You pay it, you get it. The data that Google has compared to competitors can't be bought.

Actually it is a great comparison. Building aircraft carriers is a tough business to get into. So is search. That's just how it is. You and MS sound like nothing but a bunch of whiners. "It isn't fair. Whaaah" You want what Goole has? Do what they did. Build great products that people actually want to use. Oh, but that's too hard. Tough shit.

Algorithms are still king.
You make it sound like it is simple linear relationship between click data and what is the better search result, it isn't that simple. Take your example of a click stream. Now I have to sift through massive amounts of click data all the while trying to make sure the click data is actually valid, and not some botnet trying to screw with the click stream, some idiot that doesn't know how to search. Now I have to correlated that data to indexed web page data also.
Now do this index

I never said it's only that data. Search engines now are huge algorithms combined with lots of user data and even more related keyword data. Algorithms are the base, but all that data is what makes them work. This includes user data like click stream and also keywords that users enter to search. Since Bing has a much smaller market share they cannot get this data. What's interesting about this is that while Google got in as a first actually good search engine everywhere else in the world, China and notably

Exactly. There are android phones that come with bing. In fact I complained at length to a verizon sales rep about it and told him, "What's the point of android if Bing is integrated. The whole point in buying this phone is Google."

Your screed is only relevant if they are actually doing this whole "tying" thing.

Otherwise, it's all just a lot of hot air.

Web Search is the ultimate commodity free from vendor lock. It doesn't get much better than that in computing.

It's only free from vendor lock in as long as there isn't a prohibitive barrier to compete with alternatives. The investments necessary to be competitive with Google in search now is in the range of several billion dollars yearly (which Microsoft is the only ones left able and willing to do after Yahoo throwing in the tovel). You can't come out of the basement with a more clever search algorithm anymore, because so much of what we take for granted of speed and features are dependent on enormous infrastructu

It is not Google's job to make web search any cheaper to get into. Should GM help out every tom dick and harry trying to build a car in their garage? How about Intel? Should they start leasing out their fabs to all various and sundry to appear "competitive"? Get real.

It is not Google's job to make web search any cheaper to get into. Should GM help out every tom dick and harry trying to build a car in their garage? How about Intel? Should they start leasing out their fabs to all various and sundry to appear "competitive"? Get real.

I didn't say or think this is Googles job. I was just pointing out that the " it is so easy to switch search provider" argument is a bit naive as it is dependent on there actually being alternatives.

What is the case though, is that at some point lack of competition, barrier to entry, cross-funding of services to extend dominant position, etc. becomes a regulatory issue in many markets and a job for the government agencies charged with securing healthy competition in the marketplace. And the rules are differ

I was just pointing out that the " it is so easy to switch search provider" argument is a bit naive as it is dependent on there actually being alternatives.

Bing, Yahoo, AOL and Ask.com, are all alternatives. And that's not even counting engines like Baidu and whatever they have in Russia that is kicking everybody else's ass. Just because Google makes a better product and people prefer it doesn't make it anti-competitive. Sounds like a case of sour grapes more than anything else.

What is the case though, is that at some point lack of competition,

There is no lack of competition as I mentioned above.

barrier to entry,

Running with the best of the best in search will never be cheap. I'll bet building aircraft carriers isn't cheap too. What woul

Bing, Yahoo, AOL and Ask.com, are all alternatives. And that's not even counting engines like Baidu and whatever they have in Russia that is kicking everybody else's ass. Just because Google makes a better product and people prefer it doesn't make it anti-competitive. Sounds like a case of sour grapes more than anything else.

Yahoo gave up and is using Bing. AOL is using Google. About Ask.com, Wikipedia says "In late 2010, facing insurmountable competition from Google, the company outsourced its web search technology to an unspecified third party and returned to its roots as a question and answer site.["

There is no lack of competition as I mentioned above

You mentioned Bing and Google.

Running with the best of the best in search will never be cheap. I'll bet building aircraft carriers isn't cheap too. What would you suggest we do to "fix" that? Oh, nothing? Hypocrite much?

Not sure where the personal attack came from. You keep arguing against strawmans. I didn't say what you are attacking here.

cross-funding of services to extend dominant position,

This is not even close to against the law. Google has a dominant position not a monopoly. You are confusing the two. Apple dominates the iDevice ecosystem but it isn't illegal because they have competition just like Google does.

You are very very sure of your evaluation of this. The people actually runni

What is the case though, is that at some point lack of competition, barrier to entry, cross-funding of services to extend dominant position, etc. becomes a regulatory issue in many markets and a job for the government agencies charged with securing healthy competition in the marketplace.

Then you have the gall to say

I am not and have never said anything about if I think they are right or not.

It doesn't matter whether you came out and said it. You implied it and it is obvious what your intent was. Now you are trying to weasel out of it when you get caught by acting innocent with the whole, "Who me?" schtick. Give it a rest. Admit you hate Google and it kills you that they have a product people actually like and that they are successful in delivering it. Now cry some more.

Speaking from personal experience, my Galaxy S had Yahoo! as the default search bundled in the stock ROM from my provider...hell...it didnt even have all of the usual google applications. I dont see either Samsung or Telcel suffering or being locked out in any way from any google things...hell, there are even updates for the phones being rolled out right now...

Speaking from personal experience, my Galaxy S had Yahoo! as the default search bundled in the stock ROM from my provider...hell...it didnt even have all of the usual google applications. I dont see either Samsung or Telcel suffering or being locked out in any way from any google things...hell, there are even updates for the phones being rolled out right now...

Personally, I think people are getting jealous. It is time to start innovating and producing good products and supply an alternative. I am sure that on Microsoft's phones, Google search isn't present. If Google has the lead it is because they are better. And even if they are a monopoly, so what, that is not illegal. People sometimes blame "better" on "forcing products on people". Sure maybe Google should try and collaborate with Microsoft, but that isn't in the cards. There is a reason why some vendors woul

No, being a monopoly is not illegal. But if you are using your market dominance as a way to push out competitors in other areas it can become illegal. Or do we just pretend that everyone on here wasn't complaining about similar tactics of Microsoft using their dominance in OSes to push IE?

the 'lock' is probably going to be reduces support if you replace the google pieces with Bing. That would make sense for something like the maps/locations the API might be Google Maps specific and zero effort is made to allow third party replacements of these services.

Pure and utter bullshit. I develop for Android. There is a generic intent that any map displaying on Android can listen for.

Preventing Android smartphone vendors from using other services than Google's is exactly the same kind of deal and is highly anti-competitive, as is their favoring of their own services above competing ones.

I'll bite, until you get modded as troll.

Explain how Samsung phones have Bing. Also, are you suggesting that a company bundle all services from competitors? I'd love to see how the WinMo phones do that.

Most of their marketing is really wise social engineering, the best example of being constant bombardment to download and switch to Chrome if you use IE.

Anyone still using IE has no idea other browsers exist, or are MS fanboys. What sort of constant bombardment? You mean marketing? I fail to see how people using Google complain that google advertises their products. Don't like those, try another search engine, there are a plethora to choose from.

Just because Google offers services for free and gets paid for them via advertisements and privacy violating data mining doesn't mean they can get away with everything. Most slashdotters seem to be blinded by the whole free and supposedly open thing, while most of their products are actually closed.

Anyone still using IE has no idea other browsers exist, or are MS fanboys.

That's just ignorance at its best. What about businesses? You know, IE is still the only browser that has site wide policies that can be applied organization wide easily by the IT department. Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari.. None have these. And businesses are a huge market, as people need to work. Are you saying they're all either MS fanboys or don't know about other browsers?

What sort of constant bombardment? You mean marketing? I fail to see how people using Google complain that google advertises their products. Don't like those, try another search engine, there are a plethora to choose from.

Yeah, you mean just like in the 90s people could had just bought from vendors that didn't make uncompetitive deals with Microsoft, e

Yeah, you mean just like in the 90s people could had just bought from vendors that didn't make uncompetitive deals with Microsoft, even if the damage still happened? Same situation.

The "90s" covers a 10 year period. If you are referring to the latter half, when I went into a computer store to buy a computer, the choice was essentially nothing but IBM compatible machines running windows. If I want to use another search engine, I open a tab and type that search engine's url in the address bar. The two are not even remotely similar. Google does not do anything to stop you from using another search provider in Chrome. When you install Chrome, the first thing you see is a pop-up askin

Where did all the smart trolls go? Listen, simple-simon, TFA is about the FTC investigating Google. Last I checked, the Federal Trade Commission was a part of the United States government. Want to talk about somewhere else, find a new thread.

Open how? Free as in beer, or speech? I use them because they are free as in beer, and work well. I've used competing products, Hotmail, Yahoo, and they're stuck in geocities age.

Sorry, what part of Google is "free as in beer", exactly? Their search algorithms? Ad placement? Gmail? G+? GTalk? Android?

None of Google's significant properties are open. None. The emperor has no clothes. Here, chew on this [computerworld.com]:

A protective order in the case restricts access to the Android source code, limiting the number of people who can review the code and requiring that Microsoft and Motorola "give prior written notice" to Google before showing the source code to a technical advisor. Google is to have 10 days to object.

Microsoft did not do that, Google alleged, as it moved to prevent Stevenson from testifying at the evidentiary hearing slated for later this month.

"The confidential source code improperly provided to Dr. Stevenson is highly proprietary source code that Google does not even share with its partners, such as Motorola," Google said.

Where are the complaints? Did Yahoo or MSN/Live.com Attempt to push out an app to utilize their search engine and have it rejected? Did any other search provider ask to be listed as an alternative to google search and then get rejected?

I fail to understand exactly what is being done wrong here. If they asked to participate and were refused, then I would say they definitely have a case. I seriously doubt that is what happened.

You obviously have no idea what your talking about, so i would hold onto your opinion. Microsoft had a real monopoly in the 90s and were caught red handed attempting to force OEMs and consumers to use only their products. However they had the ENTIRE PC market. Android has a little over half of the smartphone market and very little of the tablet market in comparison to apple.

Other differences from the eternal comparison of Microsoft and Gooogle:Google in fact doesn't force OEMs to use their search, we've see

Its hard to lock competing services out of a wide open eco-sytem. Take the code and write your own Android-compatible device and add all the completion you like. Isn't Bing a prominent player in one of the manufacturer's phones aout of the box? You seems really closed and bullyish to me.

Just take a step back for a moment, the fact that Google is being probed is a good thing for them and everyone else. If the probes find truly anti-competitive behaviour (which I seriously doubt based on public info) Google

No, here's what happened, since you are unable to RTFA: Skyhook offered a vendor a discount if they would modify the phone to block non-Skyhook location services from functioning. This means that Google maps doesn't work, this means that any map or navigation software you buy on the market will crash. Google doesn't want handsets that can't run software from the market, because then they have an avalanche of complaints and returns. So their policy is that you are free to fuck with the API and break your phone as much as you want, but if it's broken they don't allow you to use the Android Market from it. See, Android and Google Apps are NOT bundled after all, and although you can always use Android if you follow the license, you are not guaranteed to be able to use Google Apps, especially the market. One rule they will not relax is "If your phone will not run some Market apps, you cannot use the Market at all". Because people already send them enough death threats about "fragmenting the market" without shitty vendors intentionally making their phone crash on certain apps to prevent competition. That's right, you are on the side of anti-competitive bullshit, not opposing it. Google is the one opposing Skyhook making a condition that says "your phone must block competing software from running". You can add new shit to the API (as long as you know that any apps you write using your new calls won't be allowed on the market since they only work on your phone) but you CANNOT remove functions from the API and still be allowed on the market. Anyways, he's a really fast test to demonstrate that the crybabies are lying: My Samsung Galaxy S has Skyhook on it. Google never blocked it. It works fine. But what Samsung didn't do is get the Skyhook discount by disabling Google Maps and Google Maps Navigation.

Riddle me this, Unsatisfied: what percentage of apps on the Android market can you not run? If it is less than say, 5 percent, stop your bitching. If there is an app that you just " gotta have", petition the developer. I have one of the oldest of the second generation Android devices (OG Droid) and I can't remember the last time I had an app that wouldn't run.

So you want Google to start charging significant licensing fees to Android phone vendors? How about $50 per phone? More? You think that would affect the cost to the consumer?

Google gets its revenue from search (and selling our souls one bit at a time), and you're going to cry that their phone OS is subsidized by search revenue? Build your own, go with iOS or WinPhone, or some other option if you don't like it. Call me when Google starts charing outrageous licensing fees and ties some search revenue to th

Anti-competitive laws are exactly this - you should not use your monopoly in another area to gain unfair advantage in other market.

Google doesn't have a monopoly on smart phones, search, mail or any other service. There is a pretty healthy level of competition at the moment. There is nothing stopping vendors or customers from customizing android with non-google services. Again, I fail to see how google has a monopoly on anything.

Apple ties iphones with itunes, I fail to see why google can't do whatever they

finally someone is putting a stop to Google's monopolistic business strategies.

I think you fail to realize that "monopolistic business strategies" are the norm for business in the US.

Anti-competitive laws are exactly this - you should not use your monopoly in another area to gain unfair advantage in other market.

That's great, but if you are going to hang one company for doing this, then hang the others who are doing the same thing. Apple, Oracle, AT&T, Microsoft; they all have their little vendor lock-in schemes which don't allow any room for competition.

Yes, Apple were wrong to block other ad services. That's why they stopped blocking them, because they knew they'd get sued/investigated. Unfortunately we're talking about Google's on going behaviour here. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yeah, except for the fact that Google isn't blocking other search or ad providers on Android phones. The Google hate runs so deep that people like you simply resort to spreading lies. So sad.

Whoo there, let's not get personal. I'm not making personal attacks against you, and I don't expect to be called a liar unless you can point out were I'm factually wrong, and even then that would make me wrong not a liar.

I can not comment on the verizon bing deal, as I've not familiar with it and what ever discussions between the companies where done behind closed doors. My comment is more concerning issue that have come to light, like the motorola deal with skyhook that google objected to and then forced motorola to abandon.

You need to read the article. Skyhook was asking Motorola to break api functionality in their phones to exclude competing services with Skyhook and Google rightly told them to go fuck themselves. Please educate yourself.